'Milking program': $11B to offshore 2008-2018. 900K opioid deaths. Felony 2007. Settlement: $7.4B. Zero prison.
“$11B OFFSHORE while 900K died. Called it 'milking program.' Nobody jailed.”
What they said vs. what the evidence shows
“Not addictive due to slow-release.”
— Purdue · Jan 1996
SourceFrom “crazy” to confirmed
The Claim Is Made
This is the moment they called it crazy.
The Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, built a pharmaceutical empire on a drug that would kill more Americans than the Vietnam War. What made their case unique wasn't just the deaths—it was the evidence that they had quietly moved billions offshore while their product devastated communities across the country.
For years, the Sacklers maintained that they were responsible business leaders responding to a public health crisis they didn't create. Their company paid settlements and agreed to oversight. The family itself remained largely shielded from personal liability, protected by corporate structures and aggressive legal defense teams. To many observers at the time, this seemed like a normal outcome of pharmaceutical regulation—a company pays a fine, adjusts its practices, and moves forward.
But investigative journalists and legal teams uncovered something that changed the narrative entirely. Between 2008 and 2018, while OxyContin was generating hundreds of millions in revenue and contributing to approximately 900,000 opioid-related deaths in the United States, the Sackler family executed what legal documents would later call a "milking program." Through a series of transfers and shell companies, they withdrew approximately $11 billion and moved it beyond the reach of American courts.
The documentation was meticulous. Financial records showed the family knew about the risks—Purdue Pharma had pleaded guilty to felony charges in 2007 for misbranding . Executives had received warnings from their own sales teams. Internal communications revealed deliberate strategies to downplay addiction risks and maximize prescriptions. Yet even as lawsuits multiplied and death tolls climbed, the money kept flowing offshore.
Get the 5 biggest receipts every week, straight to your inbox — plus an exclusive PDF: The Top 10 Conspiracy Theories Proven True in 2025-2026. No spam. No agenda. Just the papers they couldn't hide.
You just read "Sacklers withdrew $11B offshore while OxyContin fueled 900K …". We send ones like this every week.
No one's said anything yet. Be the first to drop your take.
Confirmed: They Were Right
The truth comes out. Officially documented.
Confirmed: They Were Right
The truth comes out. Officially documented.
When the scale of the offshore transfer became public, it reframed everything. This wasn't a company responding to an unforeseen crisis. This was a family systematically enriching itself while engineering demand for a dangerous product, then protecting those profits from accountability. The bankruptcy settlement eventually reached $7.4 billion—a substantial number that obscured a fundamental problem: not a single family member faced criminal prosecution.
The gap between the crime and the consequence is what makes this case resonate beyond the pharmaceutical industry. Individuals convicted of drug trafficking face decades in prison. The Sacklers faced civil penalties and a settlement that, while large, came from corporate assets rather than personal wealth. Many of those billions they moved offshore remained beyond reach.
This matters because it reveals how corporate structures can insulate the people who make decisions from the human cost of those decisions. It demonstrates that even when wrongdoing is documented, even when death counts reach into six figures, the legal system can struggle to deliver proportional accountability. The offshore accounts weren't hidden—they were legal, executed through legitimate financial mechanisms that courts struggled to unwind.
The claim that the Sacklers withdrew $11 billion while their product fueled 900,000 deaths is verified not because we caught them in an obvious lie, but because the paper trail was always there. Documents, bank records, corporate filings—the evidence existed from the beginning. What changed was public attention. For years, these facts existed in legal filings few read. Only when enough people demanded answers did the full picture emerge.
This is what verification sometimes means: not discovering something new, but finally looking at what was always visible.
Beat the odds
This had a 0.2% chance of leaking — someone talked anyway.
Conspirators
~100Network
Secret kept
5.4 years
Time to 95% exposure
500+ years
